One Language, Two Grammars? - part 10 potx

change is also spilling over to BrE, which shows a steady rise in the
percentage of here is/here’s how, but is far from catching up with AmE.
44. This brings us to three examples of contrasting usage in the domain of
non-finite clauses. The first are pseudo-cleft structures of various types
illustrated in example (22), which have an infinitival clause in the identifier
slot.
(22) What/All/The only thing/The least/most/best/worst he can/could
do is/was (to) sell it.
The British–American difference in this case resides in the use or omission
of the infinitive marker to.AsFigure 19.44 reveals, in both varieties there is a
distinct trend towards unmarked infinitives, which is accelerated in AmE.
Thus, AmE is once again in the lead of a new drift towards economy while
BrE remains more conservative and more explicit. Above and beyond these
contrasts, the percentage of use of marked infinitives is dependent on
several complexity factors. A detailed account of these is beyond the scope
of the present survey, but see for instance Rohdenburg (2000: 31–2) and
Rohdenburg (2006b: 61).
35
30/43 = 70%
9/29
= 31%
15/38
= 39%
3/38
= 8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%

60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1961
(LOB)
1991
(FLOB)
1961
(Brown)
1992
(Frown)
BrE AmE
percentage of marked infinitives
Figure 19.44 Marked and unmarked infinitives with pseudo-cleft
constructions involving what, all, thing(s) or the least/most/best/
worst þ pro-verb do in four matching British and American corpora
34
34
For convenience, the search has been confined to the verb forms is and was connecting the
identifier clause and the identified clause.
35
See furthermore Berlage (2007) and Rohdenburg ( 2006b: 60), which deal with the effects of
processing complexity on variable infinitival marking in other contexts.
416 One Language, Two Grammars?
45. The second contrast concerning non-finite clauses has to do with a
particular use of gerundial -ing-forms with an implicit subject. The structure
is illustrated in example (23).
(23) As well as/In addition to sending and receiving text messages, it can

hook up to the internet.
While the type is current in BrE as well as AmE, there are important
differences in the frequencies of individual introductory elements as well
as of the construction as a whole. Consider first the frequency data given at
the bottom of the columns in Figure 19.45a. There is, arguably, a compen-
satory relationship between subjectless gerunds introduced by the preposi-
tional expressions as well as and in addition to, to the effect that BrE plumps
for the former, while AmE uses more of the latter. This frequency contrast is
matched by a divergence in the syntactic positions that can be occupied by
the gerund phrase: allowing for the fact that in addition to is more strongly
attracted to sentence-initial position than as well as, we note that the use of
this position correlates to some extent with the degrees of entrenchment of
the rivalling options. The share of initial positions is represented by the
height of the columns in Figure 19.45a. It is evident that as well as occurs
203/662 = 31%
4/164
= 2%
57/83
= 69%
253/302
= 84%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%

90%
100%
BrE
12.86 pmw
AmE
2.77 pmw
BrE
1.61 pmw
AmE
5.11 pmw
as well as in addition to
percentage of initial positions
Figure 19.45a Subjectless gerunds associated with as well as and in
addition to in selected British and American newspapers (database:
t92,m93,W92,D93)
36
36
To avoid ambiguities between subjectless gerunds and nominalized verbs, the analysis is
confined to transitive verbs involving (mobile) direct objects. Any examples of as well as or
in addition to +V-ing immediately following relative pronouns in subject function have been
treated as non-initial.
New departures 417
extremely rarely in these prominent positions in AmE compared to BrE,
while in addition to is not placed there quite as often in BrE as in AmE.
There is a whole set of preposition-like expressions with similar semantics
that can be used in the type of construction under consideration here.
Further members are apart from, aside from and besides.
37
Figure 19.45b
provides an overview of the set and compares their frequencies in BrE and

AmE of the early 1960s and 1990s. The results suggest that the use of
subjectless gerunds in this function is on the increase across both varieties
and that BrE is generally further advanced in this respect.
46. The third contrast in the domain of non-finite clauses and the final
one to be discussed in this chapter concerns the form of nominal and
pronominal subjects associated with verbal gerunds. The choice of items
using the genitive/possessive vs. the objective case pronouns is illustrated in
example (24).
(24) There is no problem with you(r)/the children(’s) (not) being Catholic.
The genitival/possessive version is the more traditional one and it has
been noted that it is more characteristic of AmE (cf. Hudson 2003: 581;see
furthermore the discussion in Mittins, Salu, Edminson and Coyne 1970:
64–7). Empirical evidence comes from the case study presented in
Figure 19.46, which is restricted to pronominal subjects. T he count focuses
4
11
25
3
11
7
5
2
5
8
0
1
1
1
0
0

6
2
6
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
4
5

1961 (LOB) 1991 (FLOB) 1961 (Brown) 1992 (Frown)
BrE AmE
frequency per million words
besides aside from apart from in addition to as well as
Figure 19.45b Subjectless gerunds associated with apart from/as well
as/besides/aside from/in addition to in four matching corpora
37
Concerning aside from and apart from, consider also Chapter 6 by Berlage.
418 One Language, Two Grammars?
on the extremely frequent gerund being preceded by possessive and objec-
tive case pronouns. If the pronoun immediately precedes the gerund, AmE
still uses possessive pronouns in every second example, while BrE does the
same in approximately one in five instances. In AmE, the gerund thus
preserves a more nominal character. However, an adverb inserted between

the pronoun and gerund (in t he count, only the items not, ever and actually
have been considered) almost neutralizes the British–American difference
by bringing the ratio of possessives in AmE down to about 1 in 3.
38
Aside
from intervarietal contrasts, t he percentage of possessive and objective case
pronouns also depends on further system-internal factors (see Heyvaert,
Rogiers and Vermeylen 2005,Lyne2006).
This brings us to our fifth and last synopsis of the phenomena treated
under the heading ‘sentential structures’. Table 19.5 again presents a very
heterogeneous picture. Three of the innovations treated in this section have
been promoted by BrE at different times (items 37 given/on the basis (that),
39, 45); in two more cases BrE seems more advanced because it has given up
41/187
=
22%
85/172
=
49%
67/232
=
29%
54/174
=
31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%

50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
BrE AmE
percentage of possessive

+

being
without intervening adverb
with intervening adverb
Figure 19.46 The rivalry between possessive and objective case pronouns
as logical subjects of the gerund being (data supplied by Susanna Lyne)
(database: t00,t02,t04,g00,g02 ,g04,d00,d02,d04,i02–04,L92 –99,
D92–95,W90 –92; from all newspapers one randomly chosen hit out of
twenty has been included; from the British newspapers only the months
Jan–Mar and Aug–Oct have been analysed)
38
The difference between instances with and without intervening adverbs observable in BrE
is not statistically significant and therefore negligible.
New departures 419
older structures that AmE preserves (items 37 being/for fear (that), 46). The
other six present examples where AmE has initiated or accelerated a change
and therefore has to be judged more progressive. It might be expected that
the changes should endow the variety that is spearheading them with a more
colloquial character, be it BrE or AmE (items 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44), but there
are also some notable examples of changes that are conducive to more

formality (items 37 given/on the basis (that), 38, 45). In the cumulated figures
(given in the bottom line), BrE reveals itself to have a more pronounced
affinity with formal structures. Three of these formal structures (items 40,
42, 44) are obviously also more consistent, while AmE violates grammatical
norms by dropping the verbal coda in 40, the operator and subject in 42 and
the infinitive marker in 44. The other phenomena do not lend themselves to
an interpretation in terms of consistency vs. irregularity. Concerning the
criterion of explicitness vs. opacity, BrE and AmE score four times each.
Generally, the variety that drops some function word can be argued to be less
explicit. Some of the other judgements would deserve further comment, but
limitations of space forbid us to enlarge on them.
3 Conclusion
Going beyond the topics discussed in detail in the foregoing chapters, the
present chapter has formed an outlook sketching some areas where addi-
tional contrasts between the grammars of BrE and AmE can be unearthed.
Some of these have so far simply not been noticed; others have been
neglected, partly on account of their relatively low frequencies, which have
Table 19.5 Synopsis of British–American contrasts in the domain of sentential structures
þ progressive/
À conservative
þ formal/
À colloquial
þ consistent/
À irregular
þ explicit/
À opaque
37. given/on the basis
(that)
BrE BrE AmE
being/for fear (that) BrE AmE BrE

38. lest þ subj. AmE (AmE) BrE
39. no matter (that) BrE (AmE) AmE
40. as far as X (is
concerned/goes)
AmE BrE BrE BrE
41. than which/whom AmE BrE
42. how come AmE BrE BrE AmE
43. this/here is how AmE (BrE) AmE
44. all etc. he can do
is/was (to) þ inf.
AmE BrE BrE BrE
45. as well as/in addition
to V-ing
BrE BrE
46. him/his being BrE AmE
sums BrE : AmE 5 : 67: 43: 04: 4
420 One Language, Two Grammars?
until recently made them ineligible for quantitative study. While the obser-
vations included in this chapter have all been buttressed by more or less
ample corpus data, they still await more detailed and systematic study. Even
so, the considerable number of no less than 46 phenomena treated here
afford an occasion to adopt a bird’s eye view of frequently discussed topics
such as the relative speeds of evolution in BrE and AmE and the directedness
of intervarietal divergences. Table 19.6 tots up the evaluations given in
Tables 19.1 to 19 .5 of section 2. For what they are worth, they provide a
quantitative measure of the relative degrees of progressiveness, formality,
consistency and explicitness of the two varieties.
A juxtaposition at this level of abstraction must of course not be over-
interpreted. Despite this caveat, the comparison shows that two of the four
criteria produce more consistent results than the others. Very often (in

thirty-five out of the forty-eight cases evaluated), AmE proves to be more
progressive than BrE. Just as often (in thirty-two out of forty-three cases),
BrE preserves or promotes more formal grammatical structures, while AmE
exhibits a greater affinity with colloquial features. There are, however,
exceptions as, for instance, in the formation of new predicates, where BrE
happens to be more innovative. Generally, the hypothesis of the ‘colonial lag’
thus has to be refuted in favour of a tendency for AmE to assume the leading
role in more recent and ongoing changes. BrE (as well as other varieties in
the English-speaking world) can be shown to take over many of the innova-
tions from AmE. In contrast, the predictive value of putative ascriptions
such as the greater regularity or explicitness of AmE (and, conversely, the
greater irregularity and opacity of BrE) is very limited. Within the datasets
considered, it is actually BrE that has a narrow lead in these respects. Rather
than indulging in preconceived generalizations, linguistic research should
thus focus on individual phenomena or groups of phenomena where
one variety is more regular (e.g. BrE in the preservation of grammatically
complete sentential structures and AmE in the formation of past participles)
or more explicit (e.g. BrE in the marking of adverbs and AmE in the
quantification of noun phrases).
Coming back to the issues of progressiveness/leadership in grammatical
change and affinity with colloquial means of expression, our survey suggests
some novel insights into interconnections between these parameters. As has
Table 19.6 Synopsis of British–American contrasts across all domains surveyed in the
present chapter (based on Tables 19.1 to 19.5)
þ progressive/
À conservative
þ formal/
À colloquial
þ consistent/
À irregular

þ explicit/
À opaque
1 46. total sums
BrE: AmE 13 : 35 32 : 11 15 : 11 21 : 18
New departures 421
been mentioned in section 1 of this chapter, most of the contrasts between
BrE and AmE are obviously of a gradual nature only. Where one variety is
moving ahead, the other frequently changes in the same direction, only with
some delay or at a slower pace. In contrast, some of the differences are more
absolute in that a change occurring in one variety remains endemic in that
variety. For BrE, this is true of the phenomena studied under items 10 ( for
longer following other comparatives), 16 (near to used with abstract nouns),
29 (to be to do with), 30 (X is down to Y), 34 (be sat/stood) and 45 (as well as
V-ing in initial position). Changes exclusive to AmE are provided by items 19
(depends on if ), 23 (the next etc. several N), 25 (how big etc. of a N), 27 (what/
who all) and 40 (as far as without verbal coda). Some further examples can be
found in the foregoing chapters of this book, e.g. the functionally motivated
split between spilt and spilled (see Chapter 3 by Levin) and the replace-like
usage of substitute (see Chapter 7 by David Denison) for BrE and the
unexceptional use of from after the verbs dismiss and excuse for AmE (see
Chapter 10 by Rohdenburg).
It can be observed that changes are likely to remain unilateral where they
originate in informal or non-standard usage and are taken over into the
national standard. The non-standard origin obviously lowers the chances of
the novel structure being adopted on the other side of the Atlantic. This is
especially true of BrE innovations (e.g. X is down to Y, be to do with, be sat/
stood), while many of the numerous new forms of expression emerging out of
the AmE non-standard do find fertile ground in BrE as well. However, the
structures as/so/how/this/that/too Adj (of) a N, it depends on if and
what/

who
all are
still unknown in BrE. This suggests that there is a certain
imbalance between the two major national varieties in that AmE is not
only more rich in innovations, but also less prone to take over changes
initiated by BrE. On the other hand, BrE (doubtless like many other varieties
of English around the world) is very receptive of innovations emerging in
America, which is a major source of new developments for the homeland
variety, but it also has its own resources, particularly the non-standard.
Notice that the majority of the pilot studies drafted in the present chapter
are based on written data (mainly journalistic prose). Even in the written
standard, we have thus been able to single out areas of divergence between
BrE and AmE. From what has just been said, it is more than likely that
divergences in spoken, especially informal usage will be much more pro-
nounced. We therefore do not agree unconditionally with Mair’s (2007a: 98)
conclusion according to which ‘we have one common underlying system of
options, ‘‘English’’, for which speakers in different communities or contexts
have different statistical preferences’. It is of course true that language users
on both sides of the Atlantic have different preferences, but some of the
contrasts go beyond mere statistical divergences. Furthermore, it can be
assumed that frequencies play an important part in the acquisition and use of
a (mental) grammar, because an increasing number of statistical differences
422 One Language, Two Grammars?
at some point lead to a loss of intercomprehensibility. We rather subscribe
to Tottie’s view (Chapter 18), according to which ‘the more delicate our
analysis, the more differences we will find’, and many small differences in
fact add up to recognizably different standards.
Coming back to the title question of the present volume, are we thus
justified in speaking of two different grammars for the language we call
English? As long as linguists are still debating the question of what should

count as variations of the ‘same’ grammatical system or as two ‘different’
grammatical systems, the decision can only be taken by each reader accord-
ing to his or her personal convictions. Two things seem clear, however. For
one, disconfirming the anticipations expressed by Noah Webster around the
year 1800 (quoted in Marckwardt and Quirk 1964: 9), BrE and AmE are not
about to diverge from each other to the extent that other modern Germanic
languages like German, Dutch, Danish and Swedish have. That the split
does not occur is ensured by the strong exchange between the two nations
that is owed to the media, the many opportunities for travel and the general
globalization of economic and cultural life. This insight is certainly not new.
For another thing, however, these external conditions fail to put a stop to
novel developments that remain restricted to one variety or the other. Both
AmE and (maybe to a somewhat lesser extent) BrE testify to an internal
dynamism that continues to drive them apart. This does not mean that an
innovation may not at some point be taken over by the other variety and
thereby turn into a mere statistical preference and become equally estab-
lished in both varieties in the end.
In sum, the present book has shown that, contrary to general opinion, the
widely accepted truism according to which ‘accent divides, and syntax unites’
(for a discussion, see Mair 2007a) is too simplistic. There is decidedly more to
British–American contrasts than only differences in pronunciation (and
the lexicon): the morphosyntax has turned out to provide fertile ground for
further research, and the present chapter has pointed to some promising
directions. What is more, it may be that BrE and AmE represent two extremes
of a grammatical continuum, with BrE at the conservative pole and AmE at the
progressive pole. Corpus-based studies including Indian, Australian and New
Zealand English have shown that these national varieties are located between
the two extremes in relevant respects (see, e.g., Sayder 1989, H undt 1998a). It
will therefore be a worthwhile enterprise to extend the angle to other varieties
of English spoken around the world, which can be expected to exhibit their

own characteristic grammatical divergences.
New departures 423
Bibliography
Electronic Corpora
AD American Drama 2005. Enigma Corporation Inc./ProQuest
Information and Learning Company. Ann Arbor, MI &
Cambridge, UK.
ANC American National Corpus 2006. 2nd release. Linguistic Data
Consortium.
ARCHER A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers.
BNC British National Corpus 1995. Version 1.0. BNC Consortium/
Oxford University Computing Services.
Brown Brown University Corpus (representing written American English
from 1961) ICAME.
CobuildDirect
Corpus.
telnet://titan.collins.co.uk (For a description of the corpus, see
Sinclair 1987 and />cobuild.pdf.).
d91–00, 02,
04
Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph on CD-ROM 1991–2000,
2002, 2004 Chadwyck-Healey/ProQuest.
D92–95 Detroit Free Press on CD-ROM 1992–5 Knight Ridder Information
Inc.
EAF Early American Fiction 2000 Chadwyck-Healey.
EAF1 First part of the EAF containing only those authors born in the
eighteenth century (*1744–*1799).
EAF2 Second part of the EAF containing only those authors born in the
nineteenth century (*1801–*1827).
ECF Eighteenth-Century Fiction 1996 Chadwyck-Healey.

ECF1 First part of the ECF containing only those authors born in the
seventeenth century (*1660–*1699).
ECF
2 Second
part of the ECF containing only those authors born in the
eighteenth century (*1700–*1752).
EEPF Early English Prose Fiction 1997–2000 Chadwyck-Healey. In asso-
ciation with the Salzburg Centre for Research on the English Novel
SCREEN.
EPD English Prose Drama 1996–7 Chadwyck-Healey.
ETC Early Twentieth Century Corpus – a selection of British and
American writings by authors born between 1870 and 1894.
Source: Project Gutenberg. Compiled in the Research Project
424
‘Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English’, University of
Paderborn. Details are available upon request.
ETC/A American writings in the ETC.
ETC/B British writings in the ETC.
FLOB Match of LOB compiled at Freiburg University (representing
written British English from 1991) ICAME.
Frown Match of Brown compiled at Freiburg University (representing
written American English from 1992) ICAME.
g90–05 Guardian (including The Observer 1994–2004) on CD-ROM
1990–2005 Chadwyck-Healey/ProQuest.
HC The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts 1991. Helsinki: Department of
English, University of Helsinki.
i93–94, 02–05 Independent and Independent on Sunday on CD-ROM 1993–94,
2002–5 ProQuest.
Los Angeles
Times

1895–1955. ProQuest Historical Newspapers online. Information
and Learning. Ann Arbor, MI.
L92–95 Los Angeles Times on CD-ROM 1992–5 Knight Ridder Information
Inc.
L96–99 Los Angeles Times 1996–9 (courtesy of The Los Angeles Times
Editorial Library).
LCSAE Longman Corpus of Spoken American English. Addison Wesley
Longman, Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex.
LNC Late Nine teenth- Century Corpus – a selection of British and American
writings ( complementary to the EAF and the NCF) by authors born
between 1830 and 186 9. Source: Project Gutenberg. Compiled i n the
Research Project ‘Determinants of Grammatical Variation in
English’, University of Paderborn. Details are available upon request.
LNC/A American writings in the LNC.
LNC/B British writings in the LNC.
LOB Lancaster/Oslo-Bergen Corpus (representing written British English
from 1961 and matching Brown) ICAME.
m93–00 Daily
Mail
and Mail on Sunday on CD-ROM 1993–2000
Chadwyck-Healey.
MNC Mid-Nineteenth Century Corpus – a selection of British and
American writings (complementary to the EAF and the NCF) by
authors born between 1803 and 1829. Source: Project Gutenberg.
Compiled in the Research Project ‘Determinants of Grammatical
Variation in English’, University of Paderborn. Details are avail-
able upon request.
MNC/A American writings in the MNC.
MNC/B British writings in the MNC.
New York

Times
1895–1955. ProQuest Historical Newspapers online. Information
and Learning. Ann Arbor, MI.
N01 New York Times on CD-ROM 2001 ProQuest.
NCF Nineteenth-Century Fiction 1999–2000 Chadwyck-Healey.
NCF1 First part of the NCF containing only those authors born in the
eighteenth century (*1728–*1799).
Bibliography 425
NCF2 Second part of the NCF containing only those authors born in the
nineteenth century (*1800–*1869).
t90–04 The Times and The Sunday Times on CD-ROM 1990–2004
Chadwyck-Healey/ProQuest.
TAL89–94 Time Magazine on CD-ROM 1989–94.
Wall Street
Journal
1895–1955. ProQuest Historical Newspapers online. Information
and Learning. Ann Arbor, MI.
Washington
Post
1895–1955. ProQuest Historical Newspapers online. Information
and Learning. Ann Arbor, MI.
W90–92 Washington Times (including Insight on the News 1990–2)on
CD-ROM 1990–2 Wayzata Technology.
World News
Access.
Selected and downloaded samples from 1996 newspapers.
ZEN Zu¨rich English Newspaper Corpus.
Dictionaries
AHD 4 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2000. 4th edition.
With CD-ROM. Edited by Joseph P. Pickett. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Cambridge International Dictionary of English 1995. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
COLLINS 5 Collins Electronic English Dictionary & Thesaurus 2002. 5th edition.
Version 3.0. Findon: Harper Collins Publishers.
COD 10 Concise Oxford Dictionary (10th Edition) on CD-ROM 2000
. Version 1.0.
Oxford:
Oxford
University Press.
EWED 2001 Encarta World English Dictionary 2001. CD-ROM. London: Bloomsbury.
Evans, Bergen and Evans, Cornelia 1957. A Dictionary of Contemporary American
Usage. New York: Random House.
Fowler, Henry W. 1926. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. London: Oxford
University Press.
Fowler’s Modern English Usage 1965. 2nd edition. Edited by Ernest Gowers. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
LDOCE Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 2003. Edited by Stephen
Bullon et al. New edition. Harlow: Longman.
MW 11 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 2003. 11th edition. With
CD-ROM. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
NODE 2000 The New Oxford Dictionary of English on CD-ROM 2000. Version 1.0.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
NHD The Newbury House Dictionary of American English 1999. With
CD-ROM. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
OED 2 The Oxford English Dictionary 1989. 2nd edition. Edited by John A. Simpson
and Edmund S. C. Weiner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OED on CD-ROM The Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition) on CD-ROM
1994 (Version 1.13) and 2002 (Version 3.0). Edited by John A. Simpson and
Edmund S. C. Weiner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OED Online The Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. [www.oed.com].
426 Bibliography
The Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners 2002. London: Macmillan.
Webster’s New World College Dictionary 1996. 3rd edition. Edited by Victoria
Neufeldt. Cleveland, OH: Macmillan.
Wells, John C. 2000. Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. 2nd edition. Harlow:
Longman.
Secondary Sources
Aarts, Bas and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.) 1995. The Verb in Contemporary English:
Theory and Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aarts, Jan and Meijs, Willem (eds.) 1990. Theory and Practice in Corpus Linguistics.
Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 4. Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
Aarts, Jan and Wekker, Herman (eds.) 1997. Studies in English Language Research and
Teaching. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Abercrombie, David 1967. Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Adams, Valerie 2001. Complex Words in English. London: Longman.
Ahrens, Ru¨diger, Bald, Wolf-Dietrich and Hu¨llen, Werner (eds.) 1995. Handbuch
Englisch als Fremdsprache. Berlin: Schmidt.
Aijmer, Karin 1984. ‘‘‘Sort of’’ and ‘‘kind of’’ in English conversation’, Studia
Linguistica 38: 118–28.
Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.) 1991. English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in
Honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman.
Aitchison, Jean and Lewis, Diana M. (eds.) 2003. New Media Language. London:
Routledge.
Albakry, Mohammed and Crawford, William 2004. ‘Subjunctive triggers in
American English newspapers’. Paper presented at the American Association
for Applied Linguistics, Portland, OR.
Algeo, John 1988a. ‘British and American grammatical differences’, International

Journal of Lexicography 1: 1–31.
1988b. ‘The tag question in British English: It’s different, i’n’it?’, English World-
Wide 9
: 171–91.
1990.
‘It’s
a myth, innit? Politeness and the English tag question’, in Ricks and
Michaels (eds.), pp. 443–50.
1992. ‘British and American mandative constructions’, in Blank (ed.),
pp. 599–617.
1995. ‘Having a look at the expanded predicate’, in Aarts and Meyer (eds.),
pp. 203–17.
(ed.) 2001. The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 6: English in North
America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2001. ‘External History’, in Algeo (ed.), pp. 1–58.
2006. British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns.
Studies in English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allerton, D. J. 1969. ‘The sentence as a linguistic unit’, Lingua 22: 27–46.
1987. ‘English intensifiers and their idiosyncrasies’, in Steele and Threadgold
(eds.), pp. 15–31.
1988. ‘Infinitivitis in English’, in Klegraf and Nehls (eds.), pp. 11–23.
Bibliography 427
2001. Review of: Paradis, Carita 1997. Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken
British English. Lund: Lund University Press. English Language and Linguistics
5: 184–8.
Allerton, D. J., Carney, Edward and Holdcroft, David (eds.) 1979. Function and
Context in Linguistic Analysis: A Festschrift for William Haas. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Allwood, Jens and Ljung, Magnus (eds.) 1980. ALVAR: A Linguistically Varied
Assortment of Readings: Studies Presented to Alvar Ellega˚rd on the Occasion of his

60th Birthday. Stockholm Papers in English Language and Literature 1.
University of Stockholm.
Altenberg, Bengt 1982. The Genitive v. the Of-Construction: A Study of Syntactic
Variation in 17th Century English. Malmo¨: CWK Gleerup.
Altenberg, Bengt and Eeg-Olofsson, Mats 1990. ‘Phraseology in spoken English:
Presentation of a project’, in Aarts and Meijs (eds.), pp. 1–26.
Anderson, John M. 1971. The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(ed.) 1982. Language Form and Linguistic Variation: Papers Dedicated to Angus
McIntosh. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
2001. ‘Modals, subjunctives, and (non-)finiteness’, English Language and
Linguistics 5: 159–66.
Anderwald, Lieselotte 2003. ‘Non-standard English and typological principles: The
case of negation’, in Rohdenburg and Mondorf (eds.), pp. 507–29.
Arnold, Jennifer, Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony and Ginstrom, Ryan 2000.
‘Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse
status on constituent ordering’, Language 76: 28–55.
Asher, Ronald E. (ed.) 1994. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Aston, Guy and Burnard, Lou 1998.
The BNC Handbook.
Edinburgh:
Edinburgh
University Press.
Atkinson, Dwight 1992. ‘The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985:
The case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal ’, Applied Linguistics 13: 337–74.
2001. ‘Scientific discourse across history: A combined multi-dimensional/
rhetorical analysis of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London’, in Conrad and Biber (eds.), pp. 45–65.
Auer, Anita 2006. ‘Precept and practice: The influence of prescriptivism on the

English subjunctive’, in Dalton-Puffer, Kastovsky, Ritt and Schendl (eds.),
pp. 33–54.
Ba¨cklund, In gegerd, B o¨r estam, Ulla, Melander Marttala, U lla and Na¨slund, Harry (eds.)
2004. Text i Arbete/Text at Work: Festskrift till Britt-Louise Gunnarsson den 12
januari 2005 /Essays in Honour of Britt-Louise Gunnarsson, 12 January 2005.
Uppsala: Institution en fo¨r nordiska spra˚k and ASLA (Association s ue´doise de
linguistique applique´e).
Ba¨ckman, Sven and Kjellmer, Go¨ran (eds.) 1985. Papers on Language and Literature:
Presented to Alvar Ellega˚rd and Erik Frykman. Gothenburg Studies in English
60. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Bailey, Richard W. 2001. ‘American English abroad’, in Algeo (ed.), pp. 456–96.
Barber, Charles 1985. ‘Linguistic change in Present-Day English’, in Ba¨ckman and
Kjellmer (eds.), pp. 36–45.
428 Bibliography
Barlow, Michael 2000. MonoConc Pro 2.0. Houston: Athelstan Publications.
Battistella, Edwin L. 1990. Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bauer, Laurie 1997. ‘A class of English irregular verbs’, English Studies 78: 545–55.
2002. An Introduction to International Varieties of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Bauer, Laurie and Trudgill, Peter (eds.) 1998. Language Myths. London: Penguin.
Baugh, Albert C. 1959. A History of the English Language. 2nd edition. London:
Routledge.
Beal, Joan 1988. ‘Goodbye to all ‘that’? The history and present behaviour of optional
‘that’’, in Nixon and Honey (eds.), pp. 44–66.
Beals, Katharine, Denton, Jeannette, Knippen, Robert, Melnar, Lynette, Suzuki,
Hisami and Zeinfeld, Erica (eds.) 1994. Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of
the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2: The Parasession on Variation in Linguistic
Theory. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Beals, Katharine et al. (eds.) 1994. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the

Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Behaghel, Otto 1924. Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, vol. 2: Die
Wortklassen und Wortformen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Behre, Frank 1934. The Subjunctive in Old English Poetry.Go¨teborgs ho¨gskolas
a˚rsskrift 40.Go¨teborg: Elander.
Berg, Thomas 1999. ‘Stress variation in British and American English’, World
Englishes
18: 123–43.
Bergh,
Gunnar,
Herriman, Jennifer and Moba¨rg, Mats (eds.) 2004. An International
Master of Syntax & Semantics. Papers Presented to Aimo Seppa¨nen on the
Occasion of his 75th Birthday. Gothenburg Studies in English 88. Gothenburg:
Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Berlage, Eva 2007. Processing Complexity and Grammatical Variation in British and
American English. Doctoral dissertation. University of Paderborn: English
Department.
Biber, Douglas 1987. ‘A textual comparison of British and American writing’,
American Speech 62: 99–119.
1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
2003. ‘Compressed noun phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The compet-
ing demands of popularization vs. economy’, in Aitchison and Lewis (eds.),
pp. 169–81.
Biber, Douglas and Clark, Victoria 2002. ‘Historical shifts in modification patterns
with complex noun phrase structures: How long can you go without a verb?’, in
Fanego, Lo´pez-Couso and Pe´rez-Guerra (eds.), pp. 43–66.
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward 1989. ‘Drift and the evolution of English style:
A history of three genres’, Language 65: 487–517.
1997. ‘Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English’,

in Nevalainen and Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.), pp. 253–75. Reprinted in Conrad and
Biber (eds.), pp. 66–83 .
Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward and Atkinson, Dwight 1994. ‘ARCHER and its
challenges: Compiling and exploring A Representative Corpus of Historical
English Registers’, in Fries, Tottie and Schneider (eds.), pp. 1–13.
Bibliography 429
Biber, Douglas, J ohansson, Stig, L eech, Geoffrey, Conrad, S usan and Finegan, Edward
1999. LongmanGrammarofSpokenandWrittenEnglish. Harlow: Longman.
Blair, David and Collins, Peter (eds.) 2001. English in Australia. Varieties of English
Around the World: General Series 26. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Blank, Claudia (ed.) 1992. Language and Civilization: A Concerted Profusion of Essays
and Studies in Honour of Otto Hietsch, vol. 2. Frankfurt: Lang.
Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer and Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.) 2003. Probabilistic Linguistics.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bo¨ker, Uwe and Sauer, Hans (eds.) 1997. Anglistentag 1996 Dresden: Proceedings.
Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1965a. Forms of English: Accent, Morpheme, Order. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
1965b. ‘Pitch accent and sentence rhythm’, in Bolinger 1965a, pp. 139–80.
1968. Aspects of Language. New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta: Harcourt,
Brace & World.
1971. The Phrasal Verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
1972. Degree Words. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
1979. ‘The jingle theory of double - ing’, in Allerton, Carney and Holdcroft (eds.),
pp. 41–56.
Borst, Eugen 1902. Die Gradadverbien im Englischen. Anglistische Forschungen 10.
Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Braun, Albert 1982. Studien zur Syntax und Morphologie der Steigerungsformen im
Englischen. Schweizer Anglistische Arbeiten 110. Bern: Francke.

Breivik, Leiv Egil and Hasselgren, Angela (eds.) 2002. From the COLT’s Mouth, and
Other Places. Studies in Honour of Anna-Brita Stenstro¨m. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Britton, Derek (ed.) 1996. English Historical Linguistics 1994
: Papers from the 8th
International
Conference
on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Bryant, Frank Egbert 1907. ‘On the conservatism of language in a new country’,
Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 22: 277–90.
Bryant, Margaret M. 1962. Current American Usage . New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
Bublitz, Wolfram 1979. ‘Tag questions, transformational grammar and pragmatics’,
Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 9: 5–22.
Butters, Ronald R. 2001. ‘Grammatical structure’, in Algeo (ed.), pp. 325–39.
Bybee, Joan 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
2003. ‘Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency’, in
Joseph and Janda (eds.), pp. 602–23.
Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul (eds.) 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic
Structure. Typological Studies in Language 45. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
2001. ‘Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure’, in
Bybee and Hopper (eds.), pp. 1–24.
Bybee, Joan and Scheibman, Joanne 1999. ‘The effect of usage on degrees of
constituency: The reduction of don’t in English’, Linguistics 37: 575–96.
Bybee, Joan and Slobin, Dan I. 1982. ‘Rules and schemas in the development and use
of the English past tense’, Language 58: 265–89.
430 Bibliography
Caie, Graham, Haastrup, Kirsten, Jakobsen, Arnt L., Nielsen, Jørgen E., Sevaldsen,
Jørgen, Specht, Henrik and Zettersten, Arne (eds.) 1990. Proceedings from the

Fourth Nordic Conference for English Studies, vol. 1. Copenhagen: University of
Copenhagen, English Department.
Carey, Gordon V. 1953. American into English: A Handbook for Translators.
Melbourne and London: Heinemann.
Cattell, Ray 1973. ‘Negative transportation and tag questions’, Language 49: 612–39.
Chen, Guohua 2000. ‘The grammaticalization of concessive markers in Early
Modern English’, in Fischer, Rosenbach and Stein (eds.), pp. 85–110.
Cheshire, Jenny 1991. ‘Variation in the use of ain’t in an urban British dialect’, in
Trudgill and Chambers (eds.), pp. 54–73.
Christie, William M. (ed.) 1976. Current Progress in Historical Linguistics.
Amsterdam: North Holland.
Christophersen, Paul 1974. ‘A note on the construction ‘‘adjective þ a þ noun’’’,
English Studies 55: 538–41 .
Christophersen, Paul and Sandved, Arthur O. 1969 . An Advanced English Grammar.
London: Macmillan.
Clark, Arthur M. 1947. Spoken English: An Idiomatic Grammar for Foreign Students.
Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd.
Close, R. A. 1987. ‘Notes on the split infinitive’, Journal of Engl ish Linguistics 20: 217–29.
Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.) 1975. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech
Acts. New York: Academic Press.
Collins, Peter 1995. ‘The indirect object construction in English: An informational
approach’, Linguistics
33: 35–49.
Collins,
Peter
and Peters, Pam 2004. ‘Australian English: Morphology and syntax’,
in Kortmann, Schneider, Burridge, Mesthrie and Upton (eds.), pp. 593–610.
Conrad, Susan and Biber, Douglas (eds.) 2001. Variation in English:
Multi-Dimensional Studies. London: Longman.
Copperud, Roy H. 1970. American Usage: The Consensus. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold.
1980. American Usage and Style: The Consensus. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth 1986. An Introduction to English Prosody.Tu¨bingen: N iemey er.
Crews, Frederick C., Schor, Sandra and Hennessy, Michael 1989. The Borzoi
Handbook for Writers. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
Crystal, David 1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2003. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. 2nd edition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culicover, Peter W. 1999. Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory and Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Curzan, Anne 2003. Gender Shifts in the History of English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cuyckens, Hubert and Radden, Gu¨nter (eds.) 2002. Perspectives on Prepositions.
Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer.
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus and Schendl, Herbert
(eds.) 2006. Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500–2000.
Bern, Berlin, Brussels, Frankfurt/Main, New York, Oxford, Wien: Lang.
Bibliography 431
de Haan, Pieter 1989. Postmodifyng Clauses in the English Noun Phrase: A
Corpus-Based Study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
De´fromont, Hubert J. 1973. Les Constructions Perfectives du Verbe Anglais
Contemporain: E
´
tude Compare´e de l’Aspect Transcendant dans les Syste`mes
Verbaux Anglais et Franc¸ais. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica, 185. The
Hague: Mouton.
Dekeyser, Xavier, Devriendt, Betty, Tops, Guy A. J. and Geukens, Steven 2004.
Foundations of English Grammar. 6th edition. Leuven: Acco.

Denison, David 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London and
New York: Longman.
1998. ‘Syntax’, in Romaine (ed.), pp. 92–329.
Depraetere, Ilse 2003. ‘On verbal concord with collective nouns in British English’,
English Language and Linguistics 7: 85– 127 .
Dillard, Joey L. 1992. A History of American English. London: Longman.
Dirven, Rene´ 1989. ‘A cognitive perspective on complementation’, in Jaspers,
Klooster, Putseys and Seuren (eds.), pp. 113–39.
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic
Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dolan, Terence Patrick 1998. A Dictionary of Hiberno-English. Dublin: Gill and
Macmillan.
Dossena, Marina and Jones, Charles (eds.) 2003. Insights into Late Modern English.
Bern: Lang.
Downing, Angela 2001. ‘‘‘Surely you knew!’’ Surely as a marker of evidentiality and
stance’, Functions of Language 8: 253–85.
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2003. ‘Naturalness and morphological change’, in Joseph and
Janda (eds.), pp. 461
–71.
Ellega˚
rd,
Alvar 1953. The Auxiliary Do: The Establishment and Regulation of its Use in
English. Gothenburg Studies in English 2. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Ellis, Alexander J. 1869–89. Early English Pronunciation, with Especial Reference to
Shakespeare and Chaucer. London: Asher.
Elsness, Johan 1990. ‘The present perfect in American and British English: Some
results from an elicitation test’, in Caie, Haastrup, Jakobsen, Nielsen,
Sevaldsen, Specht and Zettersten (eds.), pp. 169–78.
1997. The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English. Topics in
English Linguistics 21. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

2000/2001. ‘A contrastive look at the present perfect/preterite opposition in
English and Norwegian’, Languages in Contrast 3: 3–40.
Engel, Dulcie M. and Ritz, Marie-Eve 2000 . ‘The use of the present perfect in
Australian English’, Australian Journal of Linguistics 20: 119–40.
Erdmann, Peter 1981. ‘Der Konjunktiv im britischen und amerikanischen English’,
in Kunsmann and Kuhn (eds.), pp. 110–31.
Estling, Maria 2000. ‘Competition in the wastebasket: A study of constructions with
all, both and half ’, in Mair and Hundt (eds.), pp. 103–16.
Estling-Vannesta˚l, Maria 2004. Syntactic Variation in English Quantified Noun
Phrases with all, whole, both and half. Va¨xjo¨: Va¨xjo¨ University Press.
Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred and Palmer, Frank (eds.) 2003. Modality in
Contemporary English. Topics in English Linguistics 44. Berlin and New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
432 Bibliography
Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York and
London: Garland.
Fanego, Teresa 1996a. ‘On the historical development of English retrospective
verbs’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97: 71–9.
1996b. ‘The development of gerunds as objects of subject-control verbs in English
(1400–1760)’, Diachronica 13: 29–62.
1996c. ‘The gerund in Early Modern English: Evidence from the Helsinki
Corpus’, Folia Linguistica Historica 17: 97–152.
2004. ‘Is Cognitive Grammar a usage-based model? Towards a realistic account of
English sentential complements’, Miscela´nea: A Journal of English and American
Studies 29: 23–58.
Fanego, Teresa, Lo´pez-Couso, Marı´a Jose´ and Pe´rez-Guerra, Javier (eds.) 2002.
English Historical Syntax and Morphology: Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL,
Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Fijn van Draat, Pieter 1910. Rhythm in English Prose. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger

N.V. [Reprinted 1967.]
1912. ‘Rhythm in English prose: The adjective’, Anglia 36: 1–58.
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul and O’Connor, Mary Catherine 1988. ‘Regularity and
idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone’, Language 64:
501–38.
Fischer, Andreas, Tottie, Gunnel and Lehmann, Hans Martin (eds.) 2002. Text
Types
and
Corpora: Studies in Honour of Udo Fries.Tu¨bingen: Narr.
Fischer, Olga C. M. 1997a. ‘The grammaticalisation of infinitival to in English
compared with German and Dutch’, in Hickey and Puppel (eds.),
pp. 265–80.
1997b. ‘Infinitive marking in Late Middle English: Transitivity and changes in the
English system of case’, in Fisiak (ed.), pp. 109–34.
2003. ‘Principles of grammaticalization and linguistic reality’, in Rohdenburg and
Mondorf (eds.), pp. 445 –78.
Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel and Perridon, Harry (eds.) 2004. Up and Down the
Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette and Stein, Dieter (eds.) 2000. Pathways of
Change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) 1993. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, vol. 28. Poznan
´
:
Adam Mickiewicz University.
(ed.) 1997. Studies in Middle English Linguistics. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and
Monographs 103. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2000. ‘The great leveler: The role of the spoken media in
stylistic shift from the colloquial to the conventional’, American Speech 75:

54–68.
Foster, Brian 1955. ‘Recent American influence on Standard English’, Anglia 73:
328–60.
Francis, Nelson and Kuc
ˇ
era, Henry 1982. Frequency Analysis of English Usage:
Lexicon and Grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Frawley, William 1992. Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bibliography 433
Fries, Udo, Mu¨ ller, Viviane and Schneider, Peter (eds.) 1997. From Ælfric to the New
York Times: Studies in English Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Fries, Udo, Tottie, Gunnel and Schneider, Peter (eds.) 1994. Creating and Using
English Language Corpora: Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference
on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Zu¨rich 1993.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Ghadessy, Mohsen (ed.) 1988. Registers of Written English. London: Pinter.
Givo´n, Talmy 1991. ‘Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological
considerations’, Studies in Language 15: 85–114.
Gloderer, Gabriele 1993. Morphological Regularization of Irregular Verbs: A
Comparison of British and American English. Unpublished MA thesis.
University of Freiburg: English Department.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1992. ‘The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case
of the English ditransitive construction’, Cognitive Linguistics 3: 37–74.
1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) 1995. The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge,
MA, and Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Gonza´lez-A
´
lvarez, Dolores 2003. ‘If he come vs. if he comes, if he shall come: Some

remarks on the subjunctive in conditional protases in early and late Modern
English’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 104: 303–13.
Gonza´lez-Dı´az, Victorina 2004. The Evolution of the Comparative Degree in English:
A Corpus-Based Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Manchester
University.
Go¨rlach, Manfred 1987. ‘Colonial lag? The alleged conservative character of
American English and other ‘‘colonial’’ varieties’, English World-Wide 8:
41–60.
1999. Aspects
of
the History of English. Heidelberg: Winter.
Grabe, Esther and Low, Ling Ee 2002. ‘Durational variability in speech and the
rhythm class hypothesis’, in Gussenhoven and Warner (eds.), pp. 515–46.
Gramley, Stephan and Pa¨tzold, Kurt-Michael 2003. A Survey of Modern English. 2nd
edition. London: Routledge.
Granath, Solveig, Miliander, June and Wenno¨, Elisabeth (eds.) 2005. The Power of
Words: Studies in Honour of Moira Linnarud. Karlstad: Karlstad University
Press.
Graziano-King, Janine 1999. Acquisition of Comparative Forms in English.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Graduate School of the City
University of New York.
Graziano-King, Janine and Smith Cairns, Helen 2005. ‘Acquisition of English
Comparative Adjectives’, Journal of Child Language 32: 345–73.
Greenbaum, Sidney 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage. London and Harlow:
Longmans, Green and Co.
Greenberg, Joseph 1966. Language Universals with Special Reference to Feature
Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.
(ed.) 1978. Universals of Human Language, vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Grice, H. Paul 1975. ‘Logic and conversation’, in Cole and Morgan (eds.), pp. 41–58.

Reprinted in Grice, H. Paul 1989. Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
434 Bibliography
Grund, Peter and Walker, Terry 2006. ‘The subjunctive in adverbial clauses in
nineteenth-century English’, in Kyto¨, Ryde´n and Smitterberg (eds.),
pp. 89–109.
Gumperz, John J. and Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.) 1996. Rethinking Linguistic
Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gussenhoven, Carlos and Warner, Natasha (eds.) 2002. Papers in Laboratory
Phonology 7. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haegeman, Liliane 1986. ‘The present subjunctive in contemporary British English’,
Studia Anglica Posnaniensa 19: 61–74.
Haiman, John 1983. ‘Iconic and economic motivation’, Language 59: 781–819.
1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
1994. ‘Iconicity and syntactic change’, in Asher (ed.), pp. 1633–37.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1988. ‘On the language of physical science’, in Ghadessy (ed.),
pp. 162–78.
Harris, John 1991. ‘Conservatism versus substratal transfer in Irish English’, in
Trudgill and Chambers (eds.), pp. 191 –212.
Harsh, Wayne 1968. The Subjunctive in English. Alabama Linguistic & Philological
Series 15. University of Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
Hasan, Ruqiya and Fries, Peter (eds.) 1995. On Subject and Theme: A Discourse
Functional Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hatfield, James Taft, Leopold, Werner and Zieglschmid, A. J. Friedrich (eds.) 1930.
Curme Volume of Linguistic Studies: Edited on the Occasion of His Seventieth
Birthday. Linguistic Society of America: Language Monographs 7. Baltimore:
Waverly Press.
Hawkins, John A. 1986 . A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the
Contrasts. London and Sydney: Croom Helm.

1990
. ‘A parsing theory of word order universals’, Linguistic
I
nquiry 21:
223–61.
1992. ‘Syntactic weight versus information structure in word order variation’, in
Jacobs (ed.), pp. 186–219.
1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
1999. ‘Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars’,
Language 75: 244–85.
2000. ‘The relative order of prepositional phrases in English: Going beyond
manner-place-time’, Language Variation and Change 11: 231–66.
2003. ‘Why are zero-marked phrases close to their heads?’, in Rohdenburg and
Mondorf (eds.), pp. 175–204.
Hayes, Bruce 1984. ‘The phonology of rhythm in English’, Linguistic Inquiry 15:
33–74.
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike and Hu¨nnemeyer, Friederike 1991. Grammaticalization:
A Conceptual Framework. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Henry, Frank and Richards, Barry (eds.) 1983. Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and
Related Puzzles. Dordrecht and Boston: Reidel.
Heyvaert, Liesbet, Rogiers, Hella and Vermeylen, Nadine 2005. ‘Pronominal
determiners in gerundive nominalization: A ‘‘case’’ study’, English Studies
86: 71–88.
Bibliography 435
Hickey, Raymond (ed.) 2004. Legacies of Colonial English: Studies in Transported
Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hickey, Raymond and Puppel, Stanisław (eds.) 1997. Language History and Linguistic
Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, vol. 1: Language
History. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hock, Hans Heinrich 2003. ‘Analogical change’, in Joseph and Janda (eds.),
pp. 441–60.
Hoekstra, Eric and Wolf, Henk 2004. ‘Over het voorkomen van adjacente identieke
elementen’ [‘On the use of adjacent identical elements’]. Paper presented at
TIN-dag 2004, Utrecht.
Hoffmann, Sebastian 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions:
A Corpus-based Study. London and New York: Routledge.
Holmes, Janet 1983. ‘The functions of tag questions’, English Language Research
Journal 3: 40–65.
1984. ‘Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as
support structures’, Te Reo 27: 47– 62.
1986. ‘Functions of you know in women’s and men’s speech’, Language in Society
15: 1 –21.
1995. Women, Men and Politeness. Harlow: Longman.
Hommerberg, Charlotte 2003. ‘Pseudo-coordination or to-construction: A corpus
study of the ‘‘try and-problem’’’. Unpublished term paper. University of Va¨xjo¨:
English Department.
Hommerberg, Charlotte and Tottie, Gunnel 2007.‘Try to or try and? Verb com-
plementation in British and American English’, ICAME Journal 31: 45–64.
Hooper, Joan B. 1976.
‘Word
frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of
morphophonological change’, in Christie (ed.), pp. 95–105.
Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. ‘Transitivity in grammar and
discourse’, Language 56: 251–99.
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd
edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horn, Laurence R. 1978. ‘Some Aspects of Negation’, in Greenberg (ed.), pp. 127–210.
Hornby, Albert S. 1975. Guide to Patterns and Usage. 2nd edition [1st edition 1949].
London: Oxford University Press.

Horwill, H. W. 1936. American Variations.S.P.E.Tract45. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hoye, Leo 1997. Adverbs and Modality in English. London: Longman.
Huddleston, Rodney 1970. ‘Two approaches to the analysis of tags’, Journal of
Linguistics 6: 215–22.
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the
English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2005. A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hudson, Jean 1998. Perspectives on Fixedness: Applied and Theoretical. Lund: Lund
University Press.
Hudson, Richard 1975. ‘The meaning of questions’, Language 51: 1–31.
2003. ‘Gerunds without phrase structure’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
21:
579–615.
Hundt,
Marianne 1997.
‘Has British English been catching up with American
English over the past thirty years?’, in Ljung (ed.), pp. 135–51.
436 Bibliography
1998a. New Zealand English Grammar: Fact or Fiction? A Corpus-Based Study in
Morphosyntactic Variation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
1998b. ‘It is important that this study (should) be based on the analysis of parallel
corpora: On the use of the mandative subjunctive in four major varieties of
English’, in Lindquist, Klintborg, Levin and Estling (eds.), pp. 159–75.
2001. ‘What corpora tell us about the grammaticalisation of voice in get-
constructions’, Studies in Langu age 25: 49–88.
2004a. ‘The passival and the progressive passive – a case study of layering in
the English aspect and voice systems’, in Lindquist and Mair (eds.),
pp. 79–120.
2004b. ‘Animacy, agency and the spread of the progressive in eighteenth- and

nineteenth-century English’, English Language and Linguistics 8: 47–69.
Hundt, Marianne and Mair, Christian 1999. ‘‘‘Agile’’ and ‘‘uptight’’ genres: The
corpus-based approach to language change in progress’, International Journal of
Corpus Linguistics 4: 221–42.
Hundt, Marianne, Biewer, Carolin and Nesselhauf, Nadja (eds.) 2007. Corpus
Linguistics and the Web. Language and Computers 59. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Jacobs, Joachim (ed.) 1992. Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Linguistische
Berichte Sonderheft 4. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Jacobson, Sven 1975. Factors Influencing the Placement of English Adverbs in Relation
to Auxiliaries. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
(ed.) 1980. Papers from the Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation,
Stockholm, 1979. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
1981. Preverbal Adverbs and Auxiliaries: A Study of Word Order Change. Stockholm:
Almqvist and Wiksell.
Jaspers, Dany, Klooster, Wim, Putseys, Yvan and Seuren, Pieter (eds.) 1989. Sentential
Complementation and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Jespersen, Otto 1909. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, part I:
Sounds and Spellings.
London:
George Allen & Unwin and Copenhagen: Ejnar
Munksgaard [Reprinted 1961 and 1965 by J. Dickens & Co., Northampton].
1927. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, part III: Syntax (Second
Volume). London: George Allen & Unwin and Copenhagen: Ejnar Munks-
gaard [Reprinted 1961 and 1965 by J. Dickens & Co., Northampton].
1931. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, part IV: Syntax (Third
Volume). London: George Allen & Unwin and Copenhagen: Ejnar Munks-
gaard [Reprinted 1961 and 1965 by J. Dickens & Co., Northampton].
1940. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, part V: Syntax (Fourth
Volume). London: George Allen & Unwin and Copenhagen: Ejnar Munks-
gaard [Reprinted 1961 and 1965 by J. Dickens & Co., Northampton].

1942. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, part VI: Morphology.
London: George Allen & Unwin and Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard
[Reprinted 1961 and 1965 by J. Dickens & Co., Northampton].
1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, part VII: Syntax.
London: George Allen & Unwin and Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard
[Reprinted 1961 and 1965 by J. Dickens & Co., Northampton].
1972. Growth and Structure of the English Language. 9th edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Johansson, Stig 1979. ‘American and British English grammar: An elicitation experi-
ment’, English Studies 60 : 195–215.
Bibliography 437
1980. ‘Corpus-based studies of British and American English’, in Jacobson (ed.),
pp. 85–100.
Johansson, Stig and Hofland, Knut 1989. Frequency Analysis of English Vocabulary
and Grammar: Based on the LOB Corpus. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Johansson, Stig and Norheim, Else H. 1988. ‘The subjunctive in British and
American English’, ICAME Journal 12: 27–36.
Jones, Bob Morris 1990. ‘Constraints on Welsh English tags: Some evidence from
children’s language’, English World-Wide 11: 173–93.
Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.) 2003. Handbook of Historical
Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jucker, Andreas H. 1992. Social Stylistics: Syntactic Variation in British Newspapers.
Topics in English Linguistics 6. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kager, Rene´ 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch.
Doctoral dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht.
1995. ‘The metrical theory of word stress’, in Goldsmith (ed.), pp. 367–402.
Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.) 1991. Historical English Syntax. Topics in English
Linguistics 2. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kastovsky, Dieter, Kaltenbo¨ck, Gunther and Reichl, Susanne (eds.) 2002.
Anglistentag 2001 Wien. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Kato, Kazuo 2001.‘Not to be or to not be: More on split negative infinitives’, American

Speech 76: 312–15.
Keenan, Edward L. and Comrie, Bernard 1977. ‘Noun phrase accessibility and
universal grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 8
: 63–99.
Kennedy,
Graeme 1998. An
Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.
Kihlbom, Asta 1938. ‘Concerning the present subjunctive in conditional clauses’,
Studia Neophilologica 11: 257–66.
Kiparsky, Paul 1982. Explanation in Phonology. Publications in Language Sciences.
Dordrecht: Foris.
1982. ‘Remarks on analogical change’, in Kiparsky, pp. 199–215.
Kirchner, Gustav 1935. ‘To feed (tr. v.) construed with various objects and prepo-
sitions’, English Studies 17: 217–21.
1936. ‘The verbs with direct and indirect object re-examined’, English Studies 18:
1–16, 206–22.
1937. ‘The verbs with direct and indirect object re-examined: Conclusion’, English
Studies 19: 97–112.
1940. ‘(To be) due as a (passive) verb-equivalent’, English Studies 22: 27–9.
1951. ‘Die Verba mit ‘‘Stellungsdativ’’: Prima¨re und sekunda¨re Passivumwand-
lungen’, Neuphilologische Zeitschrift 3: 38–44, 115–21.
1954.‘Not before the subjunctive’, English Studies 35: 123–5
.
1955.
‘Direct
transitivation’, English Studies 36: 15–23.
1957. ‘Recent American influence on Standard English: The syntactical sphere’,
Zeitschrift fu¨r Anglistik und Amerikanistik 5: 29–42.
1959. ‘Zur transitiven und intransitiven Verwendung des englischen Verbums’,
Zeitschrift fu¨r Anglistik und Amerikanistik 7: 342–99.

Kirk, John M. (ed.) 2000. Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing
English: Papers from the Nineteenth International Conference on English Language
Research on Computerised Corpora (ICAME 1998). Amsterdam and Atlanta:
Rodopi.
438 Bibliography
Kjellmer, Go¨ran 1979. ‘The cups that cheer but not inebriate’, Moderna spra˚k 73:
179–80.
1980. ‘Accustomed to swim: Accustomed to swimming. On verbal forms after
TO’, in Allwood and Ellega˚rd (eds.), pp. 75–99.
1985.‘Help to/help Ø revisited’, English Studies 66: 156–61.
2000. ‘Auxiliary marginalities: The case of try’, in Kirk (ed.), pp. 115–24.
2003. ‘On nonoccurring perfective have in Modern English’, Studia
Neophilologica 75: 11–20.
Klegraf, Josef and Nehls, Dietrich (eds.) 1988. Essays on the English Language and
Applied Linguistics on the Occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th Birthday.
Heidelberg: Groos.
Klemola, Juhani 1999.‘Still sat in your car? Pseudo-passives with sat and stood in the
history of non-standard varieties of English English’, Sociolinguistica 13: 129–40.
2002. ‘Continuity and change in dialect morphosyntax’, in Kastovsky, Kaltenbo¨ck
and Reichl (eds.), pp. 47–56.
Ko¨nig, Ekkehard 2003. ‘Intensification and reflexivity in the languages of
Europe: Parameters of variation and areal features’, in Loi Corvetto (ed.),
pp. 229–52.
Ko¨nig, Ekkehard and Siemund, Peter
2000.
‘The development of complex reflexives
and
intensifiers in English’, Diachronica 17: 39–84.
Kortmann, Bernd 1997. Adverbial Subordination. A Typology and History of Adverbial
Subordinators Based on European Languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de

Gruyter.
(ed.) 2004. Dialectology Meets Typology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Kortmann, Bernd and Ko¨nig, Ekkehard 1992. ‘Categorial reanalysis: The case of
deverbal prepositions’, Linguistics 30: 671–97.
Kortmann, Bernd, Schneider, Edgar, Burridge, Kate, Mesthrie, Rajend and Upton,
Clive (eds.) 2004. A Handbook of Varieties of English, vol. 2: Morphology and
Syntax. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ko¨tter, Markus, Traxel, Oliver and Gabel, Stephan (eds.) 2006. Investigating and
Facilitating Language Learning: Papers in Honour of Lienhard Legenhausen .
Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Ko¨vecses, Zolta´n 2000. American English: An Introduction. Peterborough, Ontario:
Broadview Press.
Kroch, Anthony 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic Variation’, in Beals, Denton, Knippen,
Melnar, Suzuki and Zeinfeld (eds.), pp. 180–201.
Krug, Manfred 1998. ‘British English is developing a new discourse marker, innit?A
study in lexicalisation on social, regional and stylistic variation’, Zeitschrift fu¨r
Anglistik und Amerikanistik 23: 145–97.
2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization.
Topics in English Linguistics 32. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2003. ‘Frequency as a determinant in grammatical variation and change’, in
Rohdenburg and Mondorf (eds.), pp. 7– 67 .
Kruisinga, Etsko 1931
. A
Handbook of Present-Day English,
part 2: English Accidence
and Syntax 1. Groningen: Noordhoff.
Ku¨hne, Christiane 1992. Prototypische und potentielle indirekte Objekte im Englischen.
Doctoral dissertation. University of Bonn.
Bibliography 439

Kunsmann, Peter and Kuhn, Ortwin (eds.) 1981. Weltsprache Englisch in Forschung
und Lehre: Festschrift fu¨r Kurt Wa¨chtler. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Ku¨rschner, Wilfried and Rapp, Reinhard (eds.) 2006. Linguistik International:
Festschrift fu¨r Heinrich Weber. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.
Kyto¨, Merja 1991. Variation and Diachrony, with Early American English in Focus:
Studies on CAN/MAY and SHALL/WILL. Frankfurt: Lang.
1993a. ‘Early American English’, in Rissanen, Kyto¨ and Palander-Collin (eds.),
pp. 83–91.
1993b. ‘Third-person singular verb inflection in early British and American
English’, Language Variation and Change 5: 113–39.
1996. ‘‘‘The best and most excellentest way’’: The rivalling forms of adjective
comparison in Late Middle and Early Modern English’, in Svartvik (ed.),
pp. 123–44.
1997.‘Be/have þ past participle: The choice of the auxiliary with intransitives
from Late Middle to Modern English’, in Rissanen, Kyto¨ and Heikkonen (eds.)
1997a, pp. 17–85.
2004. ‘The emergence of American English: Evidence from seventeenth-century
records in New England’, in Hickey (ed.), pp. 121–57.
Kyto¨, Merja and Romaine, Suzanne 1997. ‘Competing forms of adjective comparison
in Modern English: What could be more quicker and easier and more effec-
tive?’, in Nevalainen and Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.), pp. 329–52.
2000. ‘Adjective comparison and standardisation processes in American and
British English from 1620 to the present’, in Wright (ed.), pp. 171–94.
Kyto¨, Merja, Ryde´n, Mats and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.) 2006. Nineteenth-Century
English: Stability and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations
of
Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical

Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
1988. ‘An overview of cognitive grammar’, in Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), pp. 3–48.
Lass, Roger 1987. The Shape of English: Structure and History. London and
Melbourne: Dent & Son.
1990. ‘Where do extraterritorial Englishes come from? Dialect input and recodi-
fication in transported Englishes’, in Law, Adamson, Vincent and Wright
(eds.), pp. 245–80.
(ed.) 1999. The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 3: 1476–1776.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1999. ‘Phonology and morphology’, in Lass (ed.), pp. 56–186.
Law, Vivian, Adamson, Sylvia, Vincent, Nigel and Wright, Susan (eds.) 1990. Papers
from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge,
6–9 April 1997. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Leech, Geoffrey 2003. ‘Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries
1961–1992’, in Facchinetti, Krug and Palmer (eds.), pp. 223–40.
Leech, Geoffrey and Culpeper, Jonathan 1997. ‘The comparison of adjectives
in recent British English’, in Nevalainen and Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.),
pp. 353–73.
Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan 1975. A Communicative Grammar of English.
London, Beccles and Colchester: Longman.
440 Bibliography